I'm being selfish but it's enough work, as an indy app developer, to cover 2 bases without having to cover 3 thank you.It's not more customers either, just more fragmentation.Amazon recently offered me $250 to port one of my Apps to Amazon Fire.Can anyone else really afford to squeeze into this market?

I'd imagine that there are a bunch of grey haired BlackBerry and Windows Mobile developers out there who would disagree with you.

If you had a "Top 50" app back in the day, you were basically required to support those two platforms by management even though 90% of your users didn't use them.

This is also probably why the quality of those apps was so poor on those platforms as well. Just because the developers had to write them to fill in a checkbox somewhere, they didn't bother making them good.

Well you don't sound like a developer if you think it's that easy.Sure it's "Android", but it's a different IAP system (another code branch) and it's another platform you need to setup on, financials add/update store meta, etc.But why bother? Really? It's so small that I don't bother even looking at it's sales, installs, reviews etc. I don't really care.The only reason I did it was because I had a few days free and $250 seemed like good compensation for my time. (I'm still awaiting payment Amazon... >-(

"We don't need another Mobile OS. We need a full non mobile version of windows with an LTE connection for phone calls in a phablet sized device."
I agree and I'm hoping this is what MS is aiming for when they declared Windows phone mobile ce series whatever dead.

Yes agree. I don't have a 'smart phone', just a feature phone. I use it, like (obligatory -like- in sentence), to make and receive phone calls/SMSes. I don't want more because I don't want to be advertised-to, tracked, data-harvested.

Once there are good price point Linux phones as opposed to Linux kernel+'something-or-other-commercial', I'll buy one.

Not that long time ago, there were 4 mobile OS'es that had to be supported in B2C scenarios: Blackberry OS, Windows Mobile, iOS and Android. That was actually a challenge to have common logic, but different UI with native look and feel for each platform.

Limited humans that we are, too many choices can actually be counterproductive. It's a counter-intuitive result, but the research shows it's true. Here's my simplistic explanation. I hope I haven't reduced it too much, but:

0 or 1 choices is not really a choice. No freedom there.

2 choices is the minimum for meaningful choice with some freedom.

3 to 5 choices is what most people can handle pretty well. They can understand their options and freely pick the best one for themselves.

6 to 7 choices is reaching the limit of what people can think about at one time.

8 to 10 is where some experts are working.

11 choices and above is just becoming a babble of confusion. In theory there is more freedom, but in reality it's just a matter of how the chooser is most easily manipulated, for example by manipulating the reduction of alternatives to a choice between the "desired" choice and a couple of straw-men choices.

See my sig for details, eh? (Actually that's a reduced form for Slashdot.)

I was in a hurry at the time. I should have said "bare minimum". However, I think the context should have made it clear enough that I agree with you, so I'm filing your "disagree" reply under "typical Slashdot hostility" whereas I think you had the opportunity to go for "thoughtful clarification".

I could try to clarify more, but not sure how much your brief reply calls for. Let me just say that there are cases where choice can be restricted artificially, but as long as you have two, then there is still some meaning Sad example, but the American presidential election system is deliberately designed to be winner-take-all. The Constitution has a number of important innovations, but coalition government was not one of them, so they wanted to deliberately create a situation where some leader would have a "majority" and some sort of mandate for strong action, though I believe their wise idea was that presidential strength should only be needed if the nation faced an actual existential threat that the Congress couldn't address quickly enough.

(In other words, doing nothing was often good enough for them, and they knew full well (and even hoped) that Congress was a committee that would usually do nothing unless the best thing to do was pretty darn obvious. In other other words, "First of all, do no harm." I am quite certain that the fabulous founders would be appalled by how strong the president has become so that (in our current situation) a childish dotard could potentially tweet the nation into a shooting war.)

Let me get back on topic. I don't think there's any natural reason why smartphones should be controlled by two 600-pound gorillas. I happen to believe both of the gorillas are rather evil, but that doesn't really matter. What matters is the gorillas are stifling innovation, limiting choice, and thereby reducing our freedom. My admittedly pie-in-the-sky solution of progressive taxation based on market share would put pressure on both of the gorillas to create more freedom by creating a real competitor.

On the theory that the google has control over the largest share of the market, their profits related to that market dominance, even the indirect profits, would be taxed at the higher rate. If they want to reduce their taxation, it would be in the google's interest to create real competition and a third choice, or somehow distance themselves from Android so that there are other companies seriously competing with them for the profits related to the Android standard. Or they could just keep paying the higher taxes with some of the money used to regulate the company, and some of it used for research into ways to weaken their position, and any surplus used for other government purposes (such as public schools that are at least good enough to send your dog to (in contrast to the feeble obedience schools most public schools have become)).

I actually favor the first solution (because it is similar to what should have been done to Microsoft many years ago). I think the Android standard could be split into two competing Androids. Each one would start with a copy of all relevant source code and half the resources, and then they would be encouraged to go at it, hammer and tongs. They could maintain a unified public standard OS, if they want, but they would have to publicly share all of the necessary information to conform to that standard and they would need to produce competing implementations of the standard that people like us could choose from. However I would think it better if they started from the same point and then went their own ways, with the standardization focused on data interchanges.

I'm sorry that my reply came off as hostile -- that was genuinely not my intent or state of mind. I was just making a (rather minor) point. Aside from that bit, I pretty much agreed with what you said.

I just don't think a choice between two things is much of a choice -- often it's not really any better than having only one option.

Perhaps that's because of my experience raising children: a highly effective tactic of getting children to "choose" something that isn't really optional for them (therefore avoidin

You seem to be reinforcing my point about how to manipulate choices and reduce freedom. My guess is that in each case where you used that tactic, there was at least one other choice you were eliminating from the child's consideration. We have to do such things for children as they learn how to make choices and be free, but I refer you to what I said about the schools where so many American mushrooms come from...

Get a One+ or run Lineage or something similar if that's what you are looking for. Getting out of Google's ad tracking is the higher bar. IOS just isn't the answer for me, though I do use it on my Cisco gear.

You'll get all the updates you ever wanted and then some, but you'll have to reboot 20 times over a period of three days to install them. And in your interest, it will perform the reboots automatically while you're on the phone.

The Maemo/Meego/Jolla line of mobile operating systems was by far the best in so many ways. It was actually a fully-blown OS that allowed you to use it as any other GNU/Linux computer.- Rooting was a non-issue, as long as you checked the box that you know what you're doing and taking responsibility for fscking up your device.- Ideal for tinkerers, still a pretty straight-forward OS with an clean, easy GUI for non-techies.- Privacy was a non-issue, as you didn't have to sign up for anything when startin

I like the idea of having a viable competitor to Apple and Google, but I don't want to fund the development necessary to make it viable. So, I understand why there isn't one. So, someone else please go ahead and invest loads of money to give me another alternative. I'll stand on the sidelines and cheer and not risk my own money.

So, Apple is better about privacy, but it's a tightly controlled walled garden, you don't really own your devices, as you can only run what Apple permits. Android is sort of free and open, but so is all your data, at a minimum to Google. I'd really like the good parts of both, so sorry to see CyanogenOS fail.

Windows Mobile was one of the first to market, before even iPhone. I'm still amazed that MS managed to screw that up. I think the true "killer app" was the app store - the Microsoft approach was the same as on a PC: go online, download an installer and run it.

They need to stop wasting time on things like "SafetyNet" and removing headphone jacks, and more time on things like streamlined and simple root support and end-user ROM signing, stability, supporting projects like xposed, and correcting all of their mistakes made straying from proper Unix/Linux.

Never going to happen. Streamlining root control and allowing ROM singing are in the realm of user control. The next step is the ability to install whatever OS you like. These devices are all about controlling and tracking.

...as that was designed from the ground up as a mobile OS (in its former EPOC guise). By contrast, Android and iOS were both *nix systems crammed into a stripped-down mobile form.

The trouble with Symbian was that Nokia took control. They really didn't care about its roots and instead just shoved a whole lot of unoptimised garbage on top of what was once a lithe, sleek OS - designed, no less, to run on machines with 4MB RAM and 18Mhz or thereabouts processors. Oh, that also ran from 2 AA batteries that laste

It's a joke, Apple make good hardware and lack things I absoloutely think are fucking fantastic hadware features.*I DO want a notification light, excuses as to why it's archaic are frankly, fucking stupid. It allows me to see if I need to look at my phone or not, PERIOD - no argument, no need to unlock.*I fucking LOVE a back button in a consistent location.*Android pay (in my country) is signficantly more common, doesn't require a weird little NFC card bluetoothed and glued into my phone case.*My (current) Android phone still has a goddamn headphone jack.

I don't like the performance of Android though, iOS is simply snappier at some things, purely through design trickery and cleverness. Some consistencies in iOS are fantastic (although the 'roaming back button' in whatever location the devs stipulate is fucking idiocy, *I* have a consistent button)None the less, Android has had patch after patch - support ALWAYS drops too fast for handsets vs iOS and yet Android is rarely improved and the performance just never picks up.

Apple is slick and clever but lacking hardware features and some of the lockdown is utterly inane.

I really had higher hopes for Android. I would've liked to see an open source system go somewhere but sadly it hasn't and I don't think it ever will.

I'm likely to keep my Note 5 absoloutely as long as possible at this point. I hate curved displays, I don't like lack of home buttons, I demand a headphone jack. It's shitty.Just give me a Note 5 in design but with a bit more battery and MUCH better storage and perfrmance every 2 years:/

The only way I see another alternative to IOS or Android is if you could somehow convince developers to create enough apps for it. Or you could make existing apps on Android work. We have seen a mobile OS from Mozilla, Ubuntu, Amazon, and Microsoft all fail. That's a lot of money power that could not break into the mobile OS world. Considering your competing against not only Google and Apple but would have to convince top smartphone makers to make the hardware. I just see this as another waste of money righ

I think you're spot on, it is a waste of money. No mobile platform will succeed without google's support. I think it's clear that all the alternatives that failed never saw any native support by google. I also suspect that android will eventually build a wall, from what I read about Chrome OS, the intention is to lock out all other companies and only have google deal with the OS. This appears that it will be tested with the chrome books, and if it succeeds, it will eventually find its way to the phones.

The last time I saw sales figures for Android and IOS compared, IOS was just over 10% and falling. The only things that are keeping Apples bank balance healthy is the fact that global sales are still just about growing and the 50% plus "Gullibility Tax" they put on their sales.

Just because there are a lot of new iPhones around you don't assume that this is from anything other than spare income being effectively taken by effective advertising.

For all android's fake linux bluster. There's still no platform that's not locked down from the phone's owner. Where's my root password? Why can I not compile and install from source. I don't mean pushing binary blobs and having to root the phone with row hammer!

Having used Blackberry, BB10, Windows Phone, Windows Mobile 10, Ios, and Android (Donut through Marshmallow) - I can unequivocally say that they all have great features and all "suck eggs". The one I currently use - Ios 11 on my Iphone 7+ - sucks the least. I still keep a 950xl running as I find Android the least useful for now.

Question -will it matter in three or five years when we're all using Cortana, Siri, and Alexa on our watches?

The problem is that iOS is as bad as Android or Windows Mobile (Or whatever the incarnation Microsoft calls it) and that we live in a world a lot more hostile now where we would need a fresh OS architecture that has a lot more strict security with a lot more effort put into privacy.

Companies need to understand that if they are able to track users then criminals are too.

What we need is one standard platform run on government cloud servers with strict monitoring and the most extreme restrictions imaginable. The phone / phablet should just be a very thin client that connects to that through 8g networks. That is what we really need.

You're conflating the hardware in a software comparison, and you're ignoring other areas where iOS is lacking. The Apple store is developer hostile, your app can be revoked at any time with no recourse. The source is closed, which means it's less auditable. It's not universally better in every category.

Speaking as a reformed Symbian developer , I can say categorically that Symbian didnâ(TM)t âoeget itâ at all. It used a fundamentally bizare C api that was protected under a heavy NDA making it very hard to find help when it was needed. Then when you finally got something working each handset manufacturer would make you spend hundreds of dollars *per model* in app review costs , then finally youâ(TM)d push it out , but rarely to an âoeApp Storeâ so there was none of the discove

It's not just being able to root a phone. I've never rooted a phone. On android, I've never needed to. Android lets you replace almost any function withsomething else. There are 3rd party launchers, third party dialers, third party messaging, etc... that can completely replace the built-in function.Also, for parental control, there is no comparison. Android parental control gives you full control of the system. IOS parental control barely works at all.Siri is also terrible and because IOS is not lock

Then hold on to your coffee, cause you'll want to hear this one out. Android unlike iOS isn't controlled by a single source (Apple Inc.) so the likelihood of unable-to-disable and uninstallable app is very common. This is why root access became important (unless your device vendor keep up with updates like Google). In some case, you might even want the ability to unlock boot loader to flash install a well maintained android OS just to keep it clean. Unless you don't mind background services eating all your

Android unlike iOS isn't controlled by a single source (Apple Inc.) so the likelihood of unable-to-disable and uninstallable app is very common.

I've found the opposite to be true. I've never had a problem uninstalling apps from Android but I've had a ton of problems uninstalling or using non-default apps on Apple.Because android isn't controlled by a single source, they are forced to make allowances for non-standard email clients, browsers, launchers, etc...And most of my phones have come straight from the cellular provider which would be the most likely phones to be locked like that.

And this is why android sucks. It's a complete mess without any rationale. Android is the "myspace" of mobile oses.

It gives its users the freedom to decide what it does and does not want to change. 90% of android users stick with 90% of the stock options. The stock options work for most people. The problem is when they don't. If the stock options don't work on IOS, you just have to live with it. If the stock options don't work on android, you can create an app that works for a small group of people and that small group of people can use that instead of the stock option. This is the same power of linux that allows

But a third mobile OS that needs to exist is one that uses BSD components

Why? What's so special about BSD? I've nothing against it, but why not a microkernel? Since CPUs are so very much quicker now than when the showdown between microkernels and monolithic kernels was fought, why are you (and, to be fair, pretty much everyone else) still fixated on a monolithic kernel?

In fact, if an OS designer got in bed with a chip designer and insisted on optimized context switching, without that one drawback, it would allow the two major benefits of a microkernel to shine: which are immedia

1) Last I heard the iphone8's battery life is 24 hours with average use; my motoX play (a mid range phone from 2015) has the same battery life, and I use my phone all day, even to listen music with its speaker for hours (no extra recharging), and a 1080p screen, sometimes I even forget to charge it.
2) Dalvik was used by default until android 5, now the jit-compiler is called ART (we are in android 8). It's obvious that a scripting language like java will have a poorer average performance compared to a comp

Notice how quickly the media picked on that non-story and spun it into over the board? Realize which outlets did that? Notice the cencerted efforts to spin it only one way? Sickening.

Supporting diversity doesn't mean having to put up with misogynists and NAZIs, (The grand wizzers march with NAZIs, they're fuck'n NAZIs. ) which is something that the little shit's defenders don't get. And it's fuck'n obvious that his disclaimer at the beginning was complete bullshit and simply an attempt to get his bullshit under the radar.

iOS is superior. here are some observations everyone can make. load the game super Mario run, it runs at double the frame rate on iOS. the fps is smooth as butter. android ie galaxy s7 edge it skips, takes multiple times more to load and move from screen to screen, appears to operate at half fps, has lower resolution and blocker look, etc.

iOS main issue is lack of rootability and restrictions on software design placed by apple. for example there are no ability to record phone calls on iOS as android allows.

My wife and me have all five platforms at home: Windows, Android devices, iOS devices, an old Macbook that just won't die, and Linux, both on my desktop and for the heavy lifting. I always wonder what we do wrong on the iOS platform, because it is the most difficult to handle, throws a tantrum when asked to communicate with other systems, and it is not notably more stable than Android or Windows. The Macbook is all right, I guess, but we only use it for occasional browsing and email.